Does "Sin" Prove Evolution to be Incorrect?

[Guest kingdombrat]

 

On 12/19/2020 at 1:17 PM, The Barbarian said:

As you see, Darwin won an argument with Lord Kelvin concerning the age of the solar system.   Physics (as it was known then) said ten million to 100 million years tops. 

In 1904, Rutherford suggested that radioactivity provides a source of energy sufficient to explain the existence of the Sun for the many millions of years required for the slow biological evolution on Earth proposed by biologists such as Charles Darwin. The physicist Lord Kelvin had argued earlier for a much younger Earth (see also William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin#Age of the Earth: geology) based on the insufficiency of known energy sources, but Rutherford pointed out at a lecture attended by Kelvin that radioactivity could solve this problem.^[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford

So Darwin won by default that Kelvin believed "Evolution."   Had he not, I doubt he would have changed his mind on the Earth's age to accommodate Darwin's Theories.   Technically, that does not prove anything.

On 12/19/2020 at 1:17 PM, The Barbarian said:

 

Physics only works if science (note the small "s") has the correct age of the Earth.    Chemistry only works if science has the correct age of the Earth

Biology only works if science has the correct age of the Earth.

Planetary astronomy only works if science has the correct age of the Earth

We are only assuming we are correct about the age of Earth.   So all of the Science(s) could still be correct to someone even if the Earth was 500,000 years old.

On 12/19/2020 at 1:17 PM, The Barbarian said:

Personally, I'd rather just take created as He did it.

So then, does that mean the 6 day Creation is 6 periods of 2.2 Billion years to allow from the {Bang} until now from your viewpoint?

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

They also believe {dinosaurs] were around when Noah built the Ark.   So they have to get creative about the Arks dimensions [vs] who was allowed on board. 

There's a problem with that.  Wooden vessels, beyond a certain length, flex in water, and leak so badly that they have to be continuously pumped out.    Read about the Wyoming, and what happened to it.

3 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

I am not "YEC" but I am a "Creationist" that believes in some of the Hebrew interpretations that would take the Earth to somewhere not immediate but before the "Ice Age." 

Yes, the Earth existed before the ice age. Before several of them, in fact.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

So Darwin won by default that Kelvin believed "Evolution." 

Maybe.  Don't know thta Kelvin had an opinion on that.   I do know that Darwin won on the age of the Earth when physicists learned how old some of the rocks were, and Kelvin, faced with the evidence conceded that it was very old.

2 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

We are only assuming we are correct about the age of Earth.

No, we are considering the evidence such as found by Darwin and Rutherford and many, many others.  

2 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

 So all of the Science(s) could still be correct to someone even if the Earth was 500,000 years old.

No.  Physics would be wrong.   Planetary astronomy would be wrong.   Biology would be wrong.  Geology would be wrong.   Among many others.

2 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

So then, does that mean the 6 day Creation is 6 periods of 2.2 Billion years to allow from the {Bang} until now from your viewpoint?

I'm more inclined to the view of ancient Christian theologians like St. Augustine, who realized they weren't periods of time, but categories of creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Darwin,if he had never written about evolution, would be considered an important scientist.    Not only for his classification of cirripeds, showing them to be arthropods, but also for discovering the way Pacific atolls form.

And in doing so, he showed that the world was much, much older than YE creationists assumed from their re-interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Sparks]

On 12/21/2020 at 9:59 PM, The Barbarian said:

Some creationists.   But YE creationists use a modern revision of Genesis that follows their own desires.

Sorry, I have given you scripture showing why evolution is not compatible. 

[Sparks]

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Darwin,if he had never written about evolution, would be considered an important scientist.  

He was not a scientist.  He was a pastor.  His degree was in theology.

[Sparks]

17 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I'm more inclined to the view of ancient Christian theologians like St. Augustine, who realized they weren't periods of time, but categories of creation.

So, you are a Catholic?

[The Barbarian]

Darwin,if he had never written about evolution, would be considered an important scientist.    Not only for his classification of cirripeds, showing them to be arthropods, but also for discovering the way Pacific atolls form.

And in doing so, he showed that the world was much, much older than YE creationists assumed from their re-interpretation of Genesis.

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

He was not a scientist. 

 

He was, even in his day, considered to be a major scientist.    He was voted into the Royal Society, the most prestigious scientific association of that time.   For the reasons I mentioned.

"Natural theology" was what they called biology in those days.   Many prominent scientists were theologians or even ordained ministers.

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm more inclined to the view of ancient Christian theologians like St. Augustine, who realized they weren't periods of time, but categories of creation.

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

So, you are a Catholic?

Yes. 

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

Sorry, I have given you scripture showing why evolution is not compatible. 

I know you want to believe it, but as you have seen scripture itself denies a literal creation story.